For correspondence: John Jamieson Department of Psychology, Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada P7B 5E1, Ph:
(807) 343-8738, Fax: (807) 346-7734, E-mail:john.jamieson@lakeheadu.caJohn Jamieson is a professor in the psychology department at Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, Ontario. His main interests
lie in experimental design and statistics. As an educator, he is intrigued by the factors that sustain gambling behaviours
in view of the long-term expectation of loss. Chris Mushquash is a graduate student in experimental psychology at Lakehead
University. This study was part of his HBSc thesis and he currently holds a fellowship from the Ontario Problem Gambling Research
Centre, which will support his continuing research in gambling. Dwight Mazmanian is an associate professor at Lakehead University
and a registered clinical psychologist. He is particularly interested in assessment and treatment of cognitive distortions
that underlie problem gambling.

Abstract

The role of social factors in gamblers' over-reporting of wins was explored using a survey administered via the Internet.
One hundred and fifteen gamblers (average age 36.9) completed the survey. The majority of gamblers reported that they do not
over-report wins, and would not do so for social reasons. However, they believe that other gamblers do mislead people about
their losses for a variety of social reasons, such as a desire to appear skilled or to be popular. As well, the majority of
gamblers report not feeling urges to gamble when hearing about wins, although younger people, males, and those with gambling
problems were significantly more likely to report feeling and/or acting on urges to gamble when hearing about others' wins.
The discrepancy between their views of themselves and of other gamblers may be due to cognitive distortions specific to gamblers,
or may reflect a general self-presentation bias.

It is perhaps paradoxical that at the same time casinos and lotteries are making millions of dollars, the majority of gambling
stories in the media are about wins, not losses (Hill & Williamson, 1998; McMullan & Mullen, 2001). Similarly, when conversations turn to stories about gambling, it is generally initiated by someone who wants to tell about
a recent gambling win. In spite of the fact that losses are much more common than wins, we hear primarily about the wins.
This asymmetry of information about gambling wins and losses raises several issues. First, why don't we hear about the losses?
Second, does this biased information have any effects on gambling behaviour, or on people's expectations of winning?

The phenomenon of gamblers reporting their wins, not their losses, has been widely documented. Toneatto, Blitz-Miller, Calderwood, Dragonetti, and Tsanos (1997) found that about one third of heavy gamblers showed a tendency to recall wins but forget their losses. Similarly, Carroll and Huxley (1994) found that addicted gamblers' reports of winnings exceeded what they had actually won. The usual explanation for this reporting
bias has focused on a memory availability bias: large wins are rare and salient, while losses are common and not salient (Tversky & Kahneman, 1982). However, this explanation does not address why the media over-reports wins. Might the same processes affect the selective
reporting of both the media and the individual gambler?

The media generally report stories because they are of interest to the public, and presumably the public likes to hear about
wins. Gamblers may also tell about their wins because this is what their audience wants to hear. As well, gamblers might tell
about their wins for other social reasons such as to appear more successful, or to evoke favourable impressions from others
(Schlenker & Wiegold, 1992). Holtgraves (1988) has suggested that gamblers' over-reporting of wins may be an explicit attempt to create favourable impressions on others.
Thus there appear to be two conflicting explanations for the over-reporting of wins: (1) it may reflect an implicit memory
bias, of which the gambler is unaware, or (2) it may reflect intentional efforts at impression management. The first purpose
of this study was to investigate whether gamblers intentionally tell people about their wins, not their losses, and whether
they do so for various social-interpersonal reasons.

There is little information about the effects of reports of wins in the media or from other gamblers on gambling behaviour.
It has been suggested that this biased information may strengthen the biased beliefs of gamblers (Walker, 1992). Expectations about winning (subjective probabilities) develop from both personal experience and observation. Since the
public's observations are biased because of the over-reporting of wins, this could lead to unrealistically high expectations
of winning, which might in turn lead to excessive gambling. As well, there are anecdotal reports from gambling counsellors
that problem gamblers may experience strong urges to gamble when hearing about a gambling win. The second purpose of this
study was to explore the effects of reports of wins. Are gamblers aware that the reports of wins by others are likely to be
distorted, and, as a consequence, are they skeptical of others' reports of gambling wins? As well, do they report feeling
the urge to gamble when they hear of wins, and do they act on these urges?

Method

Participants:

The sample consisted of 115 individuals recruited over the Internet. Seventy-eight (67.8%) were males and 37 (32.2%) were
females. The mean age was 36.9 years (standard deviation = 11.8). Everyone reported gambling at least some of the time; the
majority (60.9%) reported gambling more than once a month; and 27.8% gambled several times per week. Most of the sample (85.2%)
reported that their gambling was not out of control, but 12.2% reported that their gambling was “occasionally” out of control,
and 2.6% reported that their gambling was out of control.

Materials:

A 33-item questionnaire was designed for this study. It contained questions about the background and gambling behaviour of
each participant, the presence of distorted beliefs (gambler's fallacy), the perception of impact of reports of wins (by friends
and media), reasons why they or others may over-report wins, their skepticism of others, the degree to which they believe
others have an accurate description of their gambling situation and the possible activating effect of reports of wins. The
exact wording of most questions is presented in the Results section. Responses were generally on a four-point scale.

Participants were solicited over the Internet in several ways. People searches were conducted using ICQ, which is a person-to-person
discussion program that allows one to search for particular types of people. A note was also posted on several gambling-related
discussion forums (e.g. activegambler.com; bj21.com, winneronline.com), asking if anyone wished to participate in a gambling
study. A link directed them to a web page containing a consent form. Upon choosing to participate, potential participants
were directed to the questionnaire, which was administered over the Internet.

Responses were sent directly to a database that could be accessed by Statistical Package for the Social Sciences software.
The data were analyzed using bivariate correlation analyses (continuous and ordinal data) and chi-square analyses (frequency
data). In analyses that involved comparisons of the participants' responses on one item with their responses on another, McNemar's
test for related samples was employed.

Results

Gambling history and beliefs

In response to the question, “When you gamble, how often do you go back another day to win back money that you lost?”, 40.9%
of the participants reported 'chasing losses' on at least some occasions. In response to the question, “If you tossed a normal
coin and it came up 'heads' 5 times in a row, what would be the most likely result of the next toss?” Thirteen per cent of
the participants exhibited the gambler's fallacy, by choosing either ‘heads’ or ‘tails’, not ‘equally likely.’

When asked, “How many gamblers lose more than they win?”, 98.3% answered, ‘most’ or ‘all.’ But when asked the question, “Overall,
how does the money you have won compare to the amount you have lost (or spent) gambling?”, only 46.6% of participants reported
losing more than they won, 11.3% answered ‘same’ and 41.7% answered that they had won more. While they acknowledge that most
gamblers lose, the majority of gamblers completing this questionnaire said they were not among these losers. Those who reported
losing more also reported significantly more gambling problems, r(112) = .249, p <.001, and were more likely to chase losses, r(111) = .341, p<.001.

Awareness of over-reporting wins

Two items addressed whether they tell others about their gambling wins. In response to the question, “Do you talk to friends
and/or relatives about your gambling wins?”, most participants (87.9%) answered affirmatively. Also to the question, “If you
had a good win at a casino would you be excited about telling friends and/or relatives?” — the majority (66.1%) responded
they would be moderately or very excited.

Three items addressed whether they mislead others about their wins. In response to the question, “Have you ever claimed to
be winning money when in fact you lost?” 89.5% answered ‘no’, or ‘maybe once.’ To the question “Have you ever told friends
and/or relatives about a jackpot you won, without telling them that you lost money on that trip to the casino?” 93.9% answered
‘no’, or ‘maybe once.’ To the question, “Have you ever told friends and/or relatives about your wins, but not mentioned your
losses?” 78.3% answered ‘no’, or ‘maybe once.‘

While the majority report talking to friends or relatives about their wins, and being excited about talking about their wins,
they also report being truthful when describing their gambling outcomes to friends and relatives, and do not show an awareness
of over-reporting wins. However, this view of themselves contrasts with their views of other gamblers. When asked “Do people
more often tell you about their wins than about their losses?”, only 22.6% answered that this never or rarely occurred — significantly
lower than the 78.3% who said they never or maybe once did this to others, c2 (1, N = 112) = 55.39, p < .001.

The question was asked, “If you were to tell people about your wins but not your losses, why would you do this? How important
are each of the following reasons?” The reasons were “Other people are more interested in hearing about wins than hearing
about losses”; “People like to hear only good news”; “So I will appear a more skilled gambler”; “So people will not lose respect
for me”; and “So people will like me better.” The majority of gamblers reported that none of these reasons were moderately
or very important to them (see Figure 1).

A ‘mirror’ question asked the reasons why others might tell about their wins, but not their losses, and each of the same reasons
(with slight wording changes reflecting the reversal of subject and object) were rated on the same scale. Figure 1 also shows the percentage who felt these reasons were moderately or very important to other people. These percentages were
significantly higher (p<.01) for all reasons except “People/I only like to hear good news.” The reason most attributed to others for over-reporting
wins was to appear more skilled (71.4% said this was moderately or very important to others).

Additional comparisons between the importance of reasons to themselves and to others were conducted separately for those who
had reported winning more than they have lost, and those who had reported losing more than they had won. Both groups showed
the same difference between the importance of these reasons for over-reporting wins to themselves and to others.

Urges to gamble

Several questions addressed whether they felt the urge to gamble after hearing about someone else winning a large prize. To
the question “When you read about someone winning a huge lottery, do you feel the urge to buy lottery tickets?”, 67.0% reported
not feeling any urge, and 20% reported only feeling a slight urge. To the question “If a friend told you that they had won
a large jackpot playing slots at a casino, would you feel the urge to go to the casino yourself?”, 74.8% reported no urge
and an additional 15.7% only a slight urge.

Three questions addressed whether participants had acted on these urges. To the question “In the past, have you bought more
lottery tickets than you normally would have, because you read about someone winning a huge lottery prize?”, 80.9% answered
‘no’ and an additional 11.3% answered ‘maybe once.’ To the question “Have you ever gone to a casino because a friend told
you about a large jackpot they had won?”, 90.4% answered ‘no.’ The third question was “Have you ever gambled more money than
you intended, on either lottery tickets or at a casino, because a friend had recently won a large jackpot?”; again 87.8% answered
‘no.’

While the majority of gamblers reported they have not acted on urges to gamble after hearing about others wins, their view
of the effect of their reports of wins on other gamblers was quite different. In response to the question “Do you think someone
you know has gambled more because of your reports of your wins?”, only 55.8% answered “no.” This was significantly lower than
the percentage answering that they had never acted on urges to gamble after hearing about a win at either lotteries (80.9%,
c2[1, N = 113] = 14.58, p < .001) or casinos (90.4%, c2 [1, N = 113] = 29.47, p < .001). Thus the gamblers reported that they were largely unaffected by others’ reports of wins, but that others were more
likely to gamble because of their reports of wins.

Additional correlations

While the majority of participants report neither feeling nor acting on urges to gamble when hearing about wins, additional
analyses were conducted to examine the characteristics of those who did report feeling and acting on these urges. These correlations
are presented in Table 1. Stronger urges were experienced by those who reported having lost more money than they had won, who chase losses, and who
believe in the gambler's fallacy. Those who admit to having a gambling problem are more likely to act on these urges, especially
at a casino. Feeling and acting on urges are also more common in younger people and in males. Urges were not related to their
frequency of gambling.

Discussion

The findings did not provide clear support for the ‘social’ explanation for why gamblers over-report wins. Most gamblers in
the sample deny ever misleading people. Most also said they would not mislead people for any of the social reasons that were
presented. However, their view of themselves contrasts with their view of other gamblers. They believe that other gamblers
do mislead people about their losses for a variety of social reasons, such as a desire to appear skilled or to be popular.
Thus, the picture emerged that ‘others might mislead me for these social reasons, but I tell the truth.’

The discrepancy between how gamblers view themselves and how they view others was apparent throughout the questionnaire. In
response to the question “How many gamblers lose more than they win?”, 98.3% answered ‘most’ or ‘all.’ However, when asked
if they have won or lost more, only 46.6% reported losing more that they have won. As well, they felt that others had an accurate
view of their win-loss situation, but that they did not have an accurate view of others.

The possibility that this study obtained an atypical sample of gamblers who win and who do not over-report wins is not supported
by the finding that those who reported winning more and those who reported losing more both showed the same discrepancies
between their views of themselves and of other gamblers. Instead, these findings are consistent with a body of research describing
the cognitive distortions common to gamblers (Toneatto, 1999). For example, gamblers attribute success to personal factors such as skill, but attribute losses to external factors such
as bad luck (Gabory & Ladouceur, 1989). They also show distorted beliefs about the independence of events, such as the gambler's fallacy and belief in hot or cold
numbers. Another distorted belief of gamblers is an optimistic bias, which includes the illusion of control over one's destiny
(Hoorens, 1994) as well as unrealistic optimism and overconfident expectations of winning (Weinstein, 1980). Of particular relevance to the present findings are reports that gamblers minimize the skill of other gamblers and have
exaggerated self efficacy in their ability to win (Toneatto, 1999). The present findings show that gamblers minimize the gambling success and honesty of other gamblers, relative to themselves.

However, this discrepancy may well reflect a general self-presentation bias, not specific to gamblers. People tend to see
positive things about themselves, more than about others. As Pronin, Lin and Ross (2002) recently observed, “We find that our adversaries, and at times even our peers, see events and issues through the distorting
prism of their political ideology, their particular individual group history and interests, and their desire to see themselves
in a positive light. When we reflect on our own views of the world, however, we generally see little evidence of such bias.
We have the impression that we see issues and events ‘objectively’, as they are in ‘reality’… people recognize the existence,
and the impact, of most of the biases that social and cognitive psychologists have described over the past few decades. What
they lack recognition of, we would argue, is the role those same biases play in governing their own judgments and inferences”
(p. 369). As well, there is evidence for an implicit process in self evaluation, of which the individual is unaware, and which
distorts perceptions about the self. These self-related processes occur implicitly and outside of awareness and influence
information processing “without deliberate activation or conscious control” (Cross, Morris & Gore, 2002, p. 401).

The second purpose of this study was to assess whether gamblers are affected by media reports of wins or by others over-reporting
their wins. Again, the findings do not directly support such an effect. Most gamblers reported not feeling urges to gamble
when hearing about wins, and even fewer report acting on such urges. As well, most gamblers are skeptical of the reports of
others about wins, suggesting that the over-reporting of wins may not have a major impact on gambling behaviour or on expectations
of winning. However, balancing this conclusion is the finding that the gamblers felt others were more likely to gamble because
of their reports of wins. The self perception bias may again be operating to suppress the recognition of this effect on themselves.

While the present findings generally did not support a major effect of the over-reporting of wins on gambling behaviours,
several findings emerged to suggest that some subsets of the population may be particularly vulnerable to negative effects
of this biased reporting. Younger people, males and problem gamblers were significantly more likely to report feeling and/or
acting on urges to gamble when hearing about another's win. The finding of activating effects of reports of wins in these
subgroups suggests that this issue could be of potential clinical significance. Replication of these findings and further
research would be required to determine this, however.

Several potential limitations of this study should be addressed. First of all, our sample of gamblers had access to and some
knowledge of the Internet. There is no information available as to what, if any, differences might exist between gamblers
who have access to the Internet and those who do not, nor whether such differences would produce different results for the
two groups. Another issue is the extent to which responses provided on Internet-based questionnaires correspond to those obtained
using more conventional methodology (e.g. paper-and-pencil tests and questionnaires). The results of a number of recent studies
that examined this issue have revealed no differences between responses obtained using the Internet and those obtained using
paper-and-pencil methodology in such related areas as personality (e.g. Buchanan & Smith, 1999; Pettit, 2002) and alcohol use (Miller et al., 2002).

References

Buchanan, T.. Smith, J.L.. ( 1999). Using the Internet for psychological research: Personality testing on the World Wide Web. British Journal of Psychology, 90, 125-144.

Correlations between frequency of gambling, the amount of money lost, degree of problem gambling, degree of gambler's fallacy,
the degree to which the respondent chases losses, gender and age with feeling and acting on urges to gamble on lottery tickets
and at a casino.